Talk:Flypaper (1998 film)

Untitled

This is one of the weirdest yet funniest movies I have ever seen.Dumaka (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Year of release?

Rotten Tomatoes says this is a 1997 film, and IMDb says this is a 1999 film. Which is correct? GoingBatty (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Judging from IMDB production details page, both are correct. Filmed in 1997, released in 1999. I couldn't find this in a more reliable source, though. What should be done in this case? Aithus (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aithus: WP:PFILM says to use "the year of its first verifiable release", so I'll move this article to Flypaper (1999 film). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: In that case, it's 1998; the film debuted at the American Film Market (AFM) from February to March 1998 [1]. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Then please update the article with this information. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 13:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in criticizing a sex scene in Flypaper, Total Film advises audiences to look away when Lucy Liu and James Wilder "copulate as narked snakes bite their naked bods"? Source: "Look Away When: The pair copulate as narked snakes bite their naked bods." - Total Film p.3
  • ALT1: ... that TV Guide criticized Flypaper as among the "second-rate rip-offs" of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction? Source: "Who would've thought that PULP FICTION would still be inspiring second-rate rip-offs?!" - TV Guide"
  • ALT2: ... that John C. McGinley did not join the cast of Flypaper until a week into filming? Source: "Actor John C. McGinley has been tapped to costar with Robert Loggia and Craig Sheffer in Citadel Entertainment’s “Flypaper,” ... The pic began lensing last week" - Variety
  • Reviewed: [[]]
  • Comment: No QPQ needed, since this is my second DYK nomination

5x expanded by Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk). Self-nominated at 13:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Flypaper (1998 film); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• A 5x expansion has been accomplished according to a check, and the article is free from close paraphrasing. I am not approving ALT2 as it is the least interesting among the options. I have a slight preference for ALT0, but I wouldn't object to ALT1 if it is promoted. However, I don't think the Wiktionary link would be acceptable, so that link may have to be removed as generally I don't think DYK allows out-of-wiki links.

The main concern I have is the plot section. At just over 1,000 words, it's far beyond the 400-700 word guideline suggested at MOS:PLOT. My suggestion, for now, would be to cut down the plot section first, and see if afterwards the article would remain a 5x expansion. If not, then perhaps other parts of the article would need to be expanded if possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: If the nomination does not the fit the 5x range after being condensed without expansion elsewhere, then it probably should not be accepted. Perhaps more detail can be put into production/reception? TheBritinator (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say that, given that this article was 549 characters before Nineteen Ninety-Four guy started playing with it, keeping this currently-7547-character article above 5x shouldn't be difficult. I do note that the plot section was added with the summary "Added plot summary, which I'm afraid cannot be shorter than 700 words due to the unconventional narrative."--Launchballer 13:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The section does seem overly detailed so I don't think this is a case where IAR would apply. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I concede that it's overly detailed, but for a nearly two-hour movie that is convoluted and heavy on minutiae, this is as short as it gets. I made sure that only those scenes that are actually germane to the plot are included in the summary, and I even arranged the events in a way that helps the reader understand the movie better, contrary to the complex structure of the movie. Heck, I even sought the help of User:Pablov95 for the sake of transparency (I didn't wanna be accused of bending the rules by nominating a bare-boned movie article with a chunky plot that would give me raison d'etre to DYK); unfortunately, he couldn't trim it enough either, despite the fact his expertise lies on copyediting plot summaries in accordance with WP:FILMPLOT [2]. In truth, the 700-word limit is merely a guideline (albeit a widely accepted one) rather than a bright-line rule. So, I ask for your reconsideration of the plot summary as it stands; otherwise, I might have to ask for a second opinion to keep it. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Given that in cases like FAs and GAs, having an excessively long plot section can be grounds for failing, I don't think it would fly unfortunately. You also mentioned that it's heavy on minutiae: if anything, that's more of an argument to cut down the plot even further since an argument could be made that the plot section is overly detailed if not bordering on fancruft. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I reduced the plot section 1095 → 675 words. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That addressed that concern, although I will wait for a response from the nominator before proceeding. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like a fresh review of the nom, Narutolovehinata5. Many thanks, Reidgreg. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Long enough, new enough. I agree that ALT0 is more interesting, and it is cited and short enough - though that Wiktionary link can take a long walk off a short pier. No copyright concerns, no maintenance templates found. I did knock the two short sections together but is there anything else you can add to them?--Launchballer 11:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I'm afraid online coverage for this movie is pretty darn thin, I even tried looking through some sources approved by WP:FILM/R (including Entertainment Weekly, THR, and Variety) as well as some newspaper archives but nothing significant could be found about the movie. So, what you see is what you get. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. You will need to take Brolly's Instagram post out per WP:BLPSPS, but once that's done, this is ready to roll.--Launchballer 13:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you mind if you reconsider its deletion? WP:INSTAGRAM "sometimes" permits IG sources "but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject"; I have no reason to doubt the account doesn't belong to the actor nor the veracity of his recollection of his experience on the movie. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant WP:SPS, which says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."--Launchballer 14:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've removed it. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's roll.--Launchballer 15:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy and Launchballer:, I am disinclined to promote ALT0 on the basis of WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE, which advises against "excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks": apart from its numerous references to sexual activity, ALT0 is uninteresting. Launchballer, is ALT1 acceptable—you don't seem to have addressed it above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I don't agree. While the Total Film source exclusively focuses its critique on sex scenes, at least it's objective and comes from a well-respected publication. At any rate, I'd like to request a second opinion from uninvolved editors to keep it. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I really must get into the habit of reviewing every interesting hook, rather than what I consider to be the most interesting one, for precisely this reason. ALT1 is short enough and cited.--Launchballer 15:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: just to be clear, are you requesting that ALT1 not be promoted? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Just proceed with ALT1 if main hook cannot be promoted. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)